Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/636,152

Determining Operations For Device Payload Transmission Using Dynamic Manifests

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
WANG, RONGFA PHILIP
Art Unit
2199
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Ordr Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
452 granted / 534 resolved
+29.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
553
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 534 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Detail Action This office action is in response to the application filed on 2/22/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first set of identify information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 15-17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 2020/0264867 A1) in view of Lin (CN 111796853A) Per claim 1, Edwards discloses (a) a type of the device, and (b) a first version of a script executing on the device, based on the first set of identity information for the device: ([0018], discloses information including script identifier/version and device type; [0023], discloses client device execute a script; [0025] discloses a client device transmit and analytics server receives… report including information identifying the client device,.. and/or the like [0021]) Edwards does not, however, Lin discloses determining that a first operation of the first set of operations defined by the dynamic manifest comprises checking if the first version of the script executing on the device is up to date; (pp. 9, discloses a set of operations including fast upgrade firmware upgrade operation and operation for judging if firmware version identifier is the latest. Since the fast upgrade operation and judging operation are available to execute, they are inherently defined in corresponding manifest.) executing the first operation to determine if the first version of the script executing on the device is up to date; (pp. 9, see operation for judging if version identifier is the latest) responsive to determining that the first version of the script executing on the device is not up to date: transmitting instructions, to the device, to update the first version of the script to a target version of the script. (pp. 9, see fast upgrade that updates V1.0 to the latest version V2.0 corresponding to a target version) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the known technique shown in the teachings of Lin into the updating teachings of Edwards to include the limitation disclosed by Lin. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to script updated based on the device function as suggested by Lin (pp. 8, middle paragraph) Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Edwards/Lin discloses responsive to determining that the first version of the script executing on the device is not the target version of the script for the device, transmitting the target version of the script to the device. (Lin, pp. 9, see comparing latest version with history version, fast upgrade that updates V1.0 to the latest version V2.0 corresponding to a target version) Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Edwards/Lin discloses wherein the first version of the script receives and stores the target version of the script and initiates a script restart that causes execution of the target version of the script after the script restart instead of the first version of the script of the script. (Lin, pp. 13, step B40, see restarting) Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Edwards/Lin discloses wherein the target version of the script executing on the device includes one or more operation codes not included in the first version of the script. (Lin, pp. 1, disclose new version with a new function corresponding to operation codes not included in the first version) Per claims 8-10, see rejections of claims 1-3. Per claims 15-17, see rejections of claims 1-3. Per claim 21, see rejection of claim 7. Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 2020/0264867 A1) in view of Lin (CN 111796853A) and further in view of Jenkins et al. (US 9460220 B1) Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Edwards/Lin discloses wherein the first set of identify information further comprises a set of current attributes of the device, wherein the steps further comprise: (Edwards,[0018], discloses information including script identifier/version and device type corresponding to attributes;) Edwards/Lin does not, however, Jenkins discloses determining that the device is not currently executing any operation that meets a one or more criticality criteria; and responsive to determining that the device is not currently executing any operation that meets the one or more criticality criteria, causing the device to transmit content from the device. (c3:60-c4:1-5, discloses transmitting content during device idle period corresponding to not currently executing any operation.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jenkins into the teachings of Edwards/Lin to include the limitation disclosed by Jenkins. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure device executing critical operation by transmitting content when device resource is not heavily used. Per claims 13 and 20, see rejection of claim 6. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 11-12, 14 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596341
OPERATION LOOP FORMATION FOR ADAPTIVE POWER GRID MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596622
VENDOR ONBOARDING AND PRE-DEPLOYMENT SERVICE TESTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591503
DEBUGGING INSTRUCTION EXECUTION ERRORS IN A SIMULATED COMPUTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579054
APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACE TEST METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566689
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CALCULATION OF TEST AUTOMATION FEASIBILITY INDICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+6.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 534 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month